decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Bankruptcy Court hear the case instead? | 193 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Alternative
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:17 AM EDT
"If one deliberately shoots oneself in the foot, complaining
about pain in one's foot may cause onlookers to suggest not
shooting oneself in the foot next time."

Or, better yet, shooting oneself in the head, which is
considered a relatively painless procedure (well, the pain
levels are probably high but they don't last very long).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:25 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:25 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES document thread
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:26 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:27 AM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO proposes mediation
Authored by: mpellatt on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:39 AM EDT
SCO submits that it would also be appropriate for the Court to set the case for mediation on a parallel track, to determine whether the case can now be settled in light of the Novell rulings.

That little snippet suggests to me that they've thrown in the towel, and really just want the case closed so that the final stake can be driven into the heart of the undead SCO.

On second thuoghts, maybe this is just another clever SCO tactic. They don't ask for the mediation to actually settle the case, just determine whether it can be settled.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Next time?
Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 07:30 AM EDT
If one deliberately shoots oneself in the foot, complaining about pain in one's foot may cause onlookers to suggest not shooting oneself in the foot next time.

Please, no next time.  This has to end!

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't SCO's friends invest more money into SCO?
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 08:59 AM EDT
I seem to recall a private super duper priority loan of $2 Million to SCO by some of the insiders and their friends, while SCO was in bankruptcy.

Can't they do that again?

Doesn't SCO have a share price target of $50? Doesn't SCO still have four phone book sized binders laying around somewhere about how fantastical SCO's litigation outcome will be? (Or did they shred that along with other incriminating documents?)

Can't SCO simply produce Blepp's briefcase? Oh, wait -- but SCO doesn't even own Unix copyrights. But there still is the issue of IBM 'hacking' into SCO's public anonymous FTP servers to download the Linux kernel source from SCO which SCO was making publicly available.

As for outside investors, I seem to recall someone, umm... who was it again... seemed to sound something like Boreen O'Hagra or somesuch, but she said that Middle Eastern Investors were willing to give SCO up to $25 Million -- they were willing to put down their money and roll the dice, she said.

Look how far SCO has come in ten years, it seems their chances, of something, are better than ever now.

Can't SCO get some fresh new supporters in its cheering section? Oh Florian, oh Florian, where are you . . . ?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think SCO is afraid of "the possibility that new authorities may exist"
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 09:42 AM EDT
IBM says... "Not only does the Novell Judgment affect these
claims in important respects, but also the pending motions
were filed nearly five years ago and the body of relevant
case law has grown."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Replies to IBM on Motion for Reconsideration: Skip Briefing. Let's Go to Trial Quickly. We're Running Out of Money ~ pj
Authored by: cpeterson on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 11:34 AM EDT
Second, the possibility that new authorities may exist does not remotely warrant re-litigation of the same issues.

So, the fact that IBM already mentioned the issues means that they've already been "litigated"? SCO has mentioned their issues numerous times, and at length - shouldn't we, by the same token, decline to "re-litigate" those issues?

If IBM knows of such authorities, it could have filed a notice of supplemental authorities—the accepted procedure for bringing additional pertinent authority to the court’s attention.

Or, if said party were not being represented by Boies Schiller, they might have filed a "motion for leave to file" the said "notice of supplemental authorities", which is a method accepted by Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The procedure SCO suggests would adhere to the ignored and/or wishfully altered FRCP, which they seem to use in a preponderance of their dealings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sorry, SCOX(Q.pk?)
Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 12:00 PM EDT
Those Lanham Act counterclaims aren't going to vanish as if by magic.


---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy Court hear the case instead?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 12:05 PM EDT
Has SCO tried to get the compliant Bankruptcy Court to hear the case instead of
the Utah district? I can't remember. Seems like they would have a better chance
in Delaware than in Utah.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"suggest not shooting oneself in the foot next time"
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 03:04 PM EDT
My suggestion to SCO is slightly different.

Please take your foot out of your mouth before shooting
yourself in the foot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jason Cyrulnik
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT
Co-lead, they sez? Interesting. He didn't argue before the
jury in SCO v. Novell, he was one of the in-the-gallery
group.

He did sit with Ted Normand during the charging/jury
instructions conference, opposite Michael Jacobs, Daniel
Muino, Patricia Svilik, and L. Rex Sears for Novell. If jury
instructions were his responsibility, one might also
remember those turned into a major fail for SCO when they
ended up appealing a different question than the jury
instructions asked.

I don't know how much noise he made on his Blackberry (and
he was one of the thumb-messengers) but he was, otherwise,
pretty quiet in court.

cpeterson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aren't Trials also Expensive?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:50 PM EDT
SCO can't afford to wait while all that briefing goes on. Its cash supply is such, it's now or never. It wants a quick ruling on the pending 5-year-old motions, and then it wants a trial on whatever claims survive.

I thought that trials aren't exactly cheap either. If SCO is running out of money, can they finance a trial? It isn't just the cost of the lawyers (some of whom are supposedly pre-paid). Their are also going to be travel expenses, document handling expenses, expert witnesses, etc.

Boies may be pre-paid, but they're not going to be happy about actually being forced to hold up their end of the bargain. They will be privately kicking up a fuss and doing the minimum possible. They also won't be willing to cover a single penny out of their pocket for expenses that are outside of the contract.

SCO may be looking to settle, and are just using the threat of a trial as a stick to get better terms. By "better terms" I don't mean a large sum of money, as I don't see any reason for IBM to pay anything when they can just stall while SCO runs out of money. I just mean getting IBM to agree to call the whole thing off and let SCO walk away from it. This whole thing has always been about the money, and now that there isn't any, the main players on the SCO side don't like this game anymore.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's new argument
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 08:59 PM EDT
Since SCO has no money and no assets left after squandering millions, IBM's counter-claims are pointless because there is no remedy available if they win. Why waste the court's valuable time with issues that have no remedy? Therefore the court should keep IBM's counter-claims in limbo and first give us a chance to try our claims in front of a jury while IBM has both hands tied behind their back. There is no point in the court even hearing IBM's counter-claims unless we win.

Oh, and BTW, this will also give us a chance to crow to the press about how well things are going, at least until the jury discovers we are full of BS&F speak.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Replies to IBM on Motion for Reconsideration: Skip Briefing. Let's Go to Trial Quickly. We're Running Out of Money ~ pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 03:55 AM EDT
If one deliberately shoots oneself in the foot, complaining about pain in one's foot may cause onlookers to suggest not shooting oneself in the foot next time.

I fear you might have given them an idea..

[ Reply to This | # ]

"You are supposed to plan appropriately when you initiate litigation."
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 12:54 PM EDT
In the context of this litigation? Nice to see PJ still has her sense of humor
intact :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • But... but.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 06:07 PM EDT
    • Supreme Generals - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 06:33 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )